Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2335 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

we get this year? If we are lucky, we will get about $1 million. It is about $941,000 at the moment. Why? Because people have stopped speeding.

Mr Hargreaves claimed that I put some figures out that he cannot understand. Clearly, there are many things that Mr Hargreaves cannot understand, but I will reiterate them. I told him yesterday during question time. Here they are again, Mr Hargreaves. There has been a 26 per cent decrease in the proportion of vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit at speed camera sites. Before the introduction of speed cameras, the proportion of vehicles speeding was 38 per cent. After six months, the figure had dropped to 28 per cent, and that is great. Similarly, at the non-camera sites, there has been a 15 per cent decrease in speeding across the ACT, and that is great. Better still, in the areas where we have had speed cameras, the number of people speeding by more than 10 per cent above the limit has decreased by 63 per cent. The worst of the speeders have slowed down, and we have much safer roads.

Mr Hargreaves did not say that they would get rid of the speed cameras. Did anybody hear that? No, of course we did not. What does Mr Hargreaves think they are worth in a given year? In a Canberra Times article on 22 May last year he said, "This may blow out to $15 million." He gave no reasons. You can imagine John Hargreaves as Treasurer, can't you? We have made $941,000 this year, but John Hargreaves reckons it will become $15 million in a year.

Our estimates for the first full year are $2.5 million, and after that $2 million. How do we work this out? We work it out based on the experience in the other jurisdictions that introduced speed cameras. We are not reinventing the wheel here. We have learnt what the others have done, and we are willing to take that on board. I would like to know that John Hargreaves, as Treasurer, would know the difference between $2 million and $15 million. How he gets from $2 million to $15 million is a bit of a worry.

Mr Hargreaves asked why compulsory third party insurance in the ACT is so high in comparison with New South Wales. We have a different scheme. We have unlimited access to common law in the ACT. Compulsory third party insurance is currently provided by one provider, the NRMA. It could be provided by others if they met the requirements of the scheme. New South Wales do not have the same level of benefits or the same access to the law. The schemes are different. That is why you pay different rates. If you cannot understand that, Mr Hargreaves, I will explain it slower.

Mr Hargreaves spoke about playgrounds and bins in parks. I will speak slower. We will refurbish all the playgrounds. We are removing unsafe playground implements. We have a program that will see all the parks upgraded over a period of time. Mr Hargreaves is also distressed by bins. We are replacing little bins with big bins where they are required. In our assessment, no bins are required where they encourage people to dump their household rubbish and then the dogs, cats and the birds spread it everywhere. We want people to take their rubbish home and recycle it or put it in the appropriate receptacle. By manipulating the location and the size of the bins, we can do that.

There was some criticism of the buses. ACTION staff, ACTION management and the unions should be congratulated on what they have achieved. They achieved a 5 per cent increase in patronage last year and a 3 per cent increase this year. The government has put more money into ACTION because there was a shortfall. We had hoped to get more

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .